SAF Joins Amicus Brief Asking High Court Review Of Maryland Gun Case

Ammoland Inc. Posted on by
Amicus Curiae
SAF Joins Amicus Brief Asking High Court Review Of Maryland Gun Case
Second Amendment Foundation
Second Amendment Foundation

BELLEVUE, WA –-(Ammoland.com)- The Second Amendment Foundation has joined in an amicus brief in support of a case that challenges a Maryland gun control law and the federal court ruling that upholds the law by essentially distorting the meaning and intent of the 2008 Heller Ruling that defined the Second Amendment as protective of an individual right to keep and bear arms in common use.

The case is known as Kolbe v. Hogan. SAF has joined the Cato Institute, Independence Institute and National Sheriffs’ Association in filing the brief, asking that the Supreme Court of the United States take the case for review when it returns in October.

“Our interest in this case is guided by the belief that government cannot prohibit whole classes of firearms, including semiautomatic sport-utility rifles, that are in common use by private citizens and civilian law enforcement,” explained SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. ‘But in Maryland, they want to do exactly that. It’s almost as if they either don’t understand Heller, but are deliberately ignoring what was explained clearly by the late Justice Antonin Scalia.”

AR15 Gun Ban No Guns
“…government cannot prohibit whole classes of firearms, including semiautomatic sport-utility rifles, that are in common use…” explained SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb

As the brief explains, “Maryland’s firearm and ammunition restrictions stem from a misunderstanding of firearms that are in common use by citizens and law enforcement agencies. Most sheriffs and deputies carry semi-automatic handguns with magazines larger than 10 rounds that are banned in Maryland; many patrol vehicles carry a rifle that is banned in Maryland. Classifying typical sheriffs’ arms as ‘weapons of war’ alienates the public from law enforcement. Among the many harmful consequences: when a deputy uses deadly force, people will say that he or she used a military weapon. This is inflammatory, and false.”

“This is just one of several Second Amendment questions we believe the high court needs to address,” Gottlieb said. “There is also the question of bearing arms outside the home for personal protection. These constitutional issues must be addressed, and we’d rather it be sooner than later.”

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 600,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

9 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jim Macklin

MSR does not mean Modern Sporting Rifle. It means Militia Standard Rifle. But any rifle that fires ammunition of a caliber that is in warehouses and available is a suitable militia arm. Obviously the AR/M4gery as well as the M1A and Garand, the M1 Carbine and even an SKS and AK are militia arms. Obviously the Marines used off the shelf Winchester Model 70 .30/06 rifles for sniper duty in Vietnam and almost any centerfire rifle made since 1895 could be an alternate substitute arm. But the AR pattern with a standard 30 round magazine and at least a half… Read more »

0
Wild Bill

Sorry, Jim, but I grew up learning that MSR means Main Supply Route. That is the one that a guy does not want to loose control of. For Example: True Blue Road is our designated MSR. Ok, militia standard rifle. I guess that language could be useful.

0
The Revelator

No, lets stick with Modern Sporting Rifle. “Militia” is a trigger word that screams “Regulate” to the anti’s. The word sporting takes away their ability to claim any connection to the military. And, Jim, the original Stoner design was conceptualized and initially marketed as a “Sporting” arm. It had nothing to do with the military during it’s initial design phase. As is typical with the Military though, it sees a good idea and adapts it to it’s own uses. So what we have today is nothing more than a completely civilian arm that the Military modifies and uses to wage… Read more »

0
Joe

Most puzzling is that the second amendment specifically protects the use and possession of “weapons of war” (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean) by the people.

0
The Revelator

Joe, It does not say anywhere “weapons of war”. What it does specify however is “Arms.” This is anything that can be constituted as an individually fielded weapon by an individual. Clubs, knives, swords, spears(Lances were still used at that time remember), handguns, rifles, shotguns, batons, stun guns, brass knuckles/impact amplifiers, axes, metal farm implements(Remember the British at one point forbid the importation of metal shovels into the colonies out of fear they would be smithed into weapons). Now, We do not have a right to own nuclear weapons, or cruise missiles. However, Grenade launchers would fall under “Arms” by… Read more »

0
vab

So…if “bear” means “carry on your person,” why are these so-called law professionals determining that a lawful citizen can only bear arms on his/her own property? All the supporting documentation says nothing to this effect. Besides, logic dictates that the right of self-defense extends beyond the home, because most physical personal attacks occur outside the home. And because the founders believed in the right of self-defense, stated not only directly but indirectly as “certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness,” how can a citizen have a “right to Life” but not be allowed… Read more »

0
Wild Bill

@vab, You are correct. You are also a bad bad subject because you refuse to be fooled. Those law professionals are in power and mean to stay in power. Notice how it takes them thousands of pages of empty words to confuse the issues; to make your unlimited Civil Rights limited; and change carry into only carry inside the house that you own. Yet, the Bill of Rights is so clear that a second grader can read them and know what they mean. Knowing that they are all lies, why do we do what they tell us to do (that… Read more »

0
The Revelator

We have a Winner!!

Congratulations Vab. You have stumbled on the concept of reality! This is a precious and rare resource which can only be found outside of Governmental habitat. Occasional sightings are reported, with most taking place out in the country. My own postulation is that non-dairy lattes, beanies, and “Capris” act as natural repellants. Cowboy hats, dirty fingernails, and workboots tend to lure it in however. Photographs of this elusive creature are almost non existent, though its natural competition “Sheer stupidity” has been photographed and filmed, the evidence of which can be found all over the web.

0
ALAN BUNDREN

IT SEEMS THAT MOST LIBERALS CANNOT FATHOM THE WORD ARMS, AS IN KEEP AND BEAR.

0
Home Page | Recent Posts